OUTCOME IN RECIPIENTS OF DUAL KIDNEY TRANSPLANTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A novel but controversial method to increase the utilization of aged donor kidneys is the transplantation of both kidneys as a dual transplant. Initial single-center reports demonstrated outcomes similar to single kidneys from younger donors. In this report, we compare outcome in recipients of kidneys from donors > or =54 years of age who received a single kidney transplant reported to the United Network for Organ Sharing Scientific Registry versus a dual kidney transplant reported to the Dual Kidney Registry. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed, comparing four donor and nine recipient and outcome variables between recipients of a single versus a dual transplant between March 1993 and March 1999. RESULTS: Dual versus single transplants from donors > or =54 years of age have a significantly decreased incidence of delayed graft function, and lower serum creatinines up to 2 years after transplant despite having kidneys from significantly older donors with poorer HLA matching. CONCLUSIONS: Dual kidney transplants improve graft performance and outcome in recipients of kidneys from donors > or =54 years of age.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".